Mollon, M. (2016), Conflictual design artefacts reveal vertical power relationships (work in progress). Presented at the Intersectional perspectives on design, politics and power symposium. School of Arts and Communication (K3), Malmö University, Malmö (Sweden). (Nov. 14-15th).
–
Event page: http://bit.ly/designIntesect
–
Abstract
Contemporary issues of occidental society are multi-faceted and addressing them needs bringing multiple points of views around the table. However, making every voices heard is a challenge, especially the ones in the margins. On the other hand, the concept of intersectionality allows to consider how various categories – including sectarian ones as race, gender, age, ability… – simultaneously compose traits of one's identity. Here, rather than focusing on identity constitution or intersections of various categories, I address “domination” as a common attribute to these vertical relationships. In fact, many of these oppressions remain silent, because of being untold, unthought-of or unknown. They remain embedded and hidden in everyday life and everyday objects. Indeed, human-made objects often support these state of power – as they involve many actors and assumptions in their making and using. But they can also allow to identify them and to interfere with them, opening a space for horizontal discussion. I argue that “Speculative and Critical Design” (SCD) artefacts have this potential when bringing a state of “dissensus”.
The present text is a work in progress. Its main contributions are: a case study using a conflictual artefact to trigger participant responses, using SCD in collective discussion context; the firsts empirical results; and the future research directions that emerged from them. These research leads – based on new connections between existing academic works – are open to discussion with the symposium members before further development. The case study does not directly allow to avoid oppression to take place, neither to unveil it publicly. Rather, it allowed me to spot it, it allowed the participants to talk about the conflictual artefact, but most of all it allowed them to talk to each other despite the state of power. Based on this I briefly enumerate research directions and related literatures, under two main strategies: seating in-between; and breaching the norm. And I promote the use of the “dissensus” in “Participatory Design” contexts.

2.
2016.NOV.14-15 – INTERSECTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN, POLITICS AND POWER – K3, MALMÖ
UNIVERSITY – SWEDEN – MAX MOLLON
2
PAPER ’S ABSTRACT
(Find the paper on https://ensad-fr.academia.edu/MaxMollon)
Contemporary issues of occidental society are multi-faceted and
addressing them needs bringing multiple points of views around the
table. However, making every voices heard is a challenge, especially
the ones in the margins. On the other hand, the concept of
intersectionality allows to consider how various categories –
including sectarian ones as race, gender, age, ability… –
simultaneously compose traits of one's identity. Here, rather than
focusing on identity constitution or intersections of various
categories, I address “domination” as a common attribute to these
vertical relationships. In fact, many of these oppressions remain
silent, because of being untold, unthought-of or unknown. They
remain embedded and hidden in everyday life and everyday objects.
Indeed, human-made objects often support these state of power –
as they involve many actors and assumptions in their making and
using. But they can also allow to identify them and to interfere with
them, opening a space for horizontal discussion. I argue that
“Speculative and Critical Design” (SCD) artefacts have this potential
when bringing a state of “dissensus”.

16.
2016.NOV.14-15 – INTERSECTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN, POLITICS AND POWER – K3, MALMÖ
UNIVERSITY – SWEDEN – MAX MOLLON
19
A RESEARCHER LOOK AT THE PROJECT:
ON DESIGN CHOICES MADE TO MASTER THE ART OF SUBTILE-PROVOCATION

21.
2016.NOV.14-15 – INTERSECTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN, POLITICS AND POWER – K3, MALMÖ
UNIVERSITY – SWEDEN – MAX MOLLON
27
DISCUSSION › THEORETICAL DIRECTIONS3/3
Seating in-between
• Esteban Muñoz’s Disidentification: minority (i.e. queer people of
colour), negotiate identity in a majoritarian world – does not
assimilate (identify) nor reject (counter identify) › working on,
with and against.
• Moraga & Anzaldúa’s “This bridge called my back” – feeling of
belonging to two origins and fitting to none of them
• Connecting deaf hears and mute mouths
Breaching the norms
• L’Éphéméride supports a political position which is under-
represented › Disalvo’s remainder.
• It is like Garfinkel's “breaching experiment” but triggered with an
artefact (techno methodology)
• Conflict with the object & dialogue with others

22.
2016.NOV.14-15 – INTERSECTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN, POLITICS AND POWER – K3, MALMÖ
UNIVERSITY – SWEDEN – MAX MOLLON
30
LIMITS
• Needs more analysis to show the domination between ethics boss
& participants
• The artefact creates a discussion on fatalism, and not about
domination (which is analysed afterward)
• The theoretical references are not mobilised in the practical work –
but they are keys to read the work afterwards.
I.e. Needs a reflection on ANT ActorNetworkTheory, Hermeneutic
Phenomenology and “time decolonisation” in speculative design.

23.
2016.NOV.14-15 – INTERSECTIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON DESIGN, POLITICS AND POWER – K3, MALMÖ
UNIVERSITY – SWEDEN – MAX MOLLON
31
Q&A FROM THE SYMPOSIUM:
This paper’s presentation triggered questions =
• on the decolonialisation of time (in SCD). This is not addressed in
this project because my practice of SCD, here, speculates in an
alternative present. Also, the decolonialisation of time’s linear
representation is not the main point of this research. It is rather
used as a caricature, through the L’Éphéméride artefact, in order to
start actual discussions of representations shifts (of the whole
disease, including time) between patients and so called experts.
• on the teaching of SCD. Is it really relevant if freshly graduated
designers can not use SCD in a conventional (non-SCD) company?
What space for designers as game-changers in society?
Participants proposed that designers’ activism intentions may be
hidden until being in a power position, in oder to steer, advise and
impact companies strategies – even at the scale of mere graphic
design choices, or reframing the brief. I argue that designers could
either not hide and get fired, or not use their title and work in other
fields, where designers are not expected, but where there is room
(and need) for critique, debate, and mutual understanding.